Political Economy Discourses of Globalization and Feminist Politics Author(s): Suzanne Bergeron Source: Signs, Vol. 26, No.

4, Globalization and Gender (Summer, 2001), pp. 983-1006 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3175354 . Accessed: 30/05/2013 08:22
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Signs.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.119.64.188 on Thu, 30 May 2013 08:22:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Suzanne

Bergeron

Political Economy Discourses of Globalization and Feminist Politics

here seems to be general agreement that global capitalism is here to * stay.The rapidintegration of the world into one economic space through Ithe internationalization of goods, capital, and money markets is more often than not represented as an inevitable and irreversiblephase of capitalist development. The globalization of production and consumption by transnationalcorporations (with the assistanceof intergovernmentalorganizations such as the World Bank and World Trade Organization [WTO]) is characterizedas a force that shapes and transforms all of the economic, political, and culturalforms it encounters. Triumphalistaccounts that celebrate the victory of the market over all other economic forms produce such descriptions of the so-called reality of globalization. But so, too, do globalization's critics, who tend to emphasize the dark side of the new world order. While this conventional account of globalization has been persuasive, its flaws are also increasingly apparent. It is globalocentric in assuming the existence of a power structurein which global capital dominates its others. It is disempowering in its relentless insistence that this force determines all outcomes. And its tendency to articulate only technical and abstract economic processes contributes to a "narrative of eviction" (Sassen 1998, 82) that excludes the stories, forms, and practices that tend to disrupt its presumed order. In this article, I question these conventional representations of globalization and investigate their implications for imagining feminist subjectivity within, and in resistance to, global capital. I focus on the construction of subjectivities in the political economy literature on gender and globalThis article was first presented at the annual conference of the International Association for Feminist Economics in Ottawa, Canada, June 1999. I want to thank Bina Agarwal, Drue Barker,Carole Biewener, Diane Elson, Kathy Rankin, and other audience members for their helpful comments. Many thanks also to Amrita Basu, Inderpal Grewal, Caren Kaplan, Liisa Malkki, and two anonymous referees for their suggestions. in Culture andSociety ofWomen Journal [Signs: 2001, vol. 26, no. 4] ? 2001 by TheUniversity of Chicago. All rightsreserved. 0097-9740/2001/2604-0002$02.00

This content downloaded from 91.119.64.188 on Thu, 30 May 2013 08:22:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

984

Bergeron

ization.' Contemporary thinking about globalization is not, of course, limited to its forms in political economy. Perspectiveson this topic span academic, activist, cultural, literary,and other disciplinary practices and sites. Still, political economy knowledges have participated in the construction of these perspectives.Thus, feminists working in all areashave to negotiate the ways that meaning is made about the political economy of globalization. In the first section, I elaborate two major positions in the political economy literature regarding subjectivity and resistance: the global imperative approach, which contends that the economic logic of capitalism has created a truly global economic, social, and cultural system that can only be countered by global resistance movements; and the national management approach,which is based on the idea that the logic of global capitalreserves some power for the nation-state, including national resistance to the ravages of globalization. In the second section, I discuss feminist political economy approaches that have, by and large, adopted the global imperative or national management scripts. In the third section, I present some alternativesto these two approaches.I draw these alternativeways of theorizing about capitalism,subjectivity,and resistancefrom an emerging scholarship on gender and globalization. Throughout, I focus on the range of subjectivities produced in the feminist political economy literature on this topic. What gender identities, decisions, choices, and interventions do these texts invoke and elaborate?What experiences of globalization, strategies for resistance, and identity formations that represent new subjectivities, including feminist subjectivities, do political economists envision?

Global and national subjects in the political economy literature Recent studies of globalization extend across a wide variety of perspectives and themes. Works in the social sciences, for example, fall into two broadly defined categories of study. One focuses primarily on economic forces of transnationalcapital flows and global markets; the second emphasizes the cultural conditions of globalization such as the purported emergence of a global village and the coca-colonization of the planet. Scholars also hold competing views as to whether we are converging into a homogenous world economic and cultural system or whether recent transformations have spawned an increased heterogeneity of economic and cultural forms
This article looks at writings on political economy produced within a range of different texts disciplines, including geography, planning, and sociology, but I focus particularlyon that produced with the disciplines of economics and international political economy. Note economists generally use the term political economyto describe heterodox and radical approaches that are critical of mainstream, neoclassical economics.

This content downloaded from 91.119.64.188 on Thu, 30 May 2013 08:22:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

S IG N S

Summer 2001

985

(Agnew and Corbridge 1995). Still another point of difference exists between advocates of globalization and its critics. Basing their arguments on the tenets of free-marketneoclassical economic theory, globalization's champions emphasize the efficiency,stability, and equity of the new world order. Critical perspectives span a broader range of theoretical positions and tend to focus on the instabilities and inequities of the new world (dis)order. Despite the proliferation of different perspectives and foci, however, conventional accounts tend to share a common discourse regarding the political economy of globalization. For example, both advocates and critics see capitalism as the force and logic behind recent transformations.This is true for those who celebrate the global shift as the natural working out of market forces as well as for critics who contend that the world is being remade to meet the needs of what FredericJameson (1991) has called late modern capitalism.2In addition, both the Left and the Right agree that the major actors on the global stage are transnationalcorporations, with international financial institutions (such as the World Bank, the WTO, and the International Monetary Fund [IMF]) and the state playing supporting roles. Work in the social sciences frequently portrays globalization as the inevitable outcome of capitalism's drive to increase profits, which, with the development of new communication and transportation technologies, createsglobal production chains, monetary flows, and commodity markets. Such work represents economic logic as the determining force of globalization, and such logic is inexorable. In much of the political economy literature, the power of transnational capital is nearly absolute, as it constructs a universalworld economy and culture, squashing and replacing all local alternativeswith universal markets (via neoliberal economic policies) and cultural products that transnational corporations such as Disney and McDonald's produce and market (Brecher and Costello 1994; Gill 1995). These processes constitute a determining factor within the larger context of globalization. While generally theorized as the product of economic restructuring, globalization also restructures cultures and societies and therefore the ways in which people construct their identities. The focus on identity and subjectivity, which are fairly undertheorized in political
2 While there is some debate as to whether recent shifts actually signify a historical break with the past (e.g., MacEwan and Tabb 1989), most accounts of globalization view the recent integration of production, consumption, finance, and the media as a distinctly new phase of capitalist development. Peter Dicken, e.g., distinguishes globalization from the earlier postwar internationalization of economic activity by characterizing it as "a more advanced and complex form ... which implies a degree of functional integration between internationally dispersed economic activities" (1992, 1).

This content downloaded from 91.119.64.188 on Thu, 30 May 2013 08:22:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

986

Bergeron

economy approaches, is a hallmarkof much of the culturaland sociological literature on the topic. Some studies contend that the effects of economic globalization create a tendency toward culturalhomogeneity (e.g., Castells 1998). While they generally cast such an outcome in a negative light, some writers have also imagined that these outcomes contain some positive aspects, such as giving rise to a global civil society where, as Anthony Giddens puts it, "humankindin some respects becomes a 'we, facing problems and opportunities where there are no 'others"' (1991, 27). Alternative formulations, however, see globalization as a force that localizes, fragments, and even renationalizes identities, as global forces interact with local economic and cultural forms to produce a heterogeneous array of different practices, arrangements, and subjectivities (e.g., Appadurai 1990). Some imagine globalization as a force that makes the world into a single place and at the same time puts pressureon local cultures to develop and nurture distinct identities (Robertson 1992). While many of these cultural analyses offer complex and nuanced accounts of the social aspects of globalization and contribute greatly to our understanding of subjectivity within this context, they tend to presume that globalization is the force that constructs its others (Ling 1996). Like most political economy approaches, they convey a sense that globalization and, in particular,globalized capital are "bigger than all of us" (Kayatekin and Ruccio 1998, 80). This discursive move leaves little room for agency or resistance outside of the logic of global capital expansion. The power of globalized capital has, among other things, called into question the significance of the national as a site of collective identity and the state as a force that can function to serve the collective interests of those who reside within the nation. However, the extent to which this has occurred is a matter of much debate. Transnationalcapital has superseded many of the functions of the old national, state-led model and is rearranging many of our traditional notions of economic and political space (Agnew and Corbridge 1995). The undermining of state sovereignty has emerged as a dominant theme in the globalization literature. Jan Scholte, and "a for example, defines globalization as the "rise of supraterritoriality" a situation from decades in recent shift thoroughly domiaway general of the Keynesian The decline nated by national identities" (1996, 565). welfare state in Europe and North America, where the globalization of production and finance are seen as significantly altering the state's ability to manage the national economy, has signaled this shift. Similarly, in the developing world, the abandonment of state-led national development policies and the adoption of a neoliberal, export-oriented approach (often under the auspices of World Bank and IMF-instituted structuraladjustment

This content downloaded from 91.119.64.188 on Thu, 30 May 2013 08:22:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SI G N S

Summer 2001

987

programs) often marks the decline of national sovereignty. For many analysts, the result has been the "hollowing out" of the state (Jessop 1995). National governments have abandoned their commitments to the poor and vulnerable and to maintaining national economic stability, and whatever actions they might take frequently place the needs of transnational capital above all others. For some, this signals that national governments have little if any role to play in the global economic system. For example, many advocates of globalization argue that the state must accept its shrinking role given the new "realities"of global competition, and they celebrate the demise of the national model and the emergence of an integrated global economy. This aspect of globalization discourse plays itself out in multiple sites and contexts. For almost twenty years international financial institutions such as the World Bank have encouraged the integration of developing countries into the global market through the implementation of structural adjustment policies and other measures. According to such institutions, future integration can solve nearly every economic problem (e.g., World Bank 1996a). For example, recent World Bank attempts to resolve the negative effects of economic restructuringand globalization on women have emphasized the need for even further integration into the global economy.3 Promoting the movement of women into transnationallabor and financialmarkets will, according to the World Bank, allow them to experience"beneficial changes in the economy" that have heretofore simply been "slow in reaching women" (1994, 68). The World Bank, which has based its policy making and analysis almost exclusively on neoclassical, free-marketeconomic theories, utilizes, not surprisingly,the same cosmopolitan view of economic subjectivity that underwrites most neoclassical economic arguments. In contrast to those who imagine the marginalized as potential global subjects who will enjoy the benefits of the market once they are included, some critics of globalization imagine a different kind of global subject, one who stands in opposition to global capital. Here, "globalization from below," in the form of globalized progressive movements and/or a democratic and accountable system of governance, can counter "globalization from above."ArifDirlik (1994) is one of many who argues that economic globalization has created the conditions for marginalized peoples to come
3 It should be noted that until very recently the World Bank has scarcely acknowledged the negative effects of its restructuringpolicies on women. A comprehensive study of World Bank documents by Cynthia Wood demonstrates this point. Despite a number of studies by feminist researchersdating back to the early 1980s documenting the differential effects of restructuringon men and women, it was not until 1994 that the bank first published a policy paper on the topic (Wood 1999).

This content downloaded from 91.119.64.188 on Thu, 30 May 2013 08:22:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

988

Bergeron

together and form a global resistance movement against capitalism. Tariq Banuri and Juliet Schor (1992) contend that the global order of transnational production and finance calls for a new international system of economic regulation. These internationalregulatory agencies would represent the shared interests of global economic subjects by, for instance, protecting the common interests of workers across the globe. However, as Serap Kayatekin and David Ruccio (1998) note, these works retain a certain amount of ambiguity as regardsthe power of global capital. While some accounts suggest that the global reach of capital renders any notion of national policy (barring those measures that meet the functional needs of international capital) problematic, there are alternative visions that contend national governments have some power, albeit modified, to manage their economies, protect vulnerable groups, and bargain with global capital. Following Kayatekin and Ruccio (1998), we can refer to the former as the "global-imperative"approach and the latter as the "national-management"approach. Elaborating the major differences between these approaches is important because they frequently result in divergent strategies for response and resistance. If the critics of globalization imagine that the nation-state has ceased (or will imminently cease) to function meaningfully, that globalization has delinked the interests of governments from their "own" corporations and has compelled all governments to subordinate completely progressive agendas to the goal of internationalcompetitiveness, then the only project capable of subverting capital must be transnational in character. Perhaps, once upon a time, nation-states kept the economic interests and well-being of their citizens the central focus and moreover were capable of managing their national economies and meeting citizen demands for economic stability,environmental regulations, labor regulations, and social safety nets. However, according to the global-imperative argument, transnational capital now thwarts national policies that do not subscribe to its logic. An alternative vision of the global economy maintains that national identities still count. This formulation does not necessarilyturn on the old Keynesian-Fordist assumptions of national production and consumption, or on national-planning, closed economy models. Indeed, many of those who invoke the nation-state's economic role within the new world order begin by acknowledging the extent to which that role has changed in the past years. Still, a wide varietyof observers across the political spectrum believe that the state continues to have power to manage the affairsof the nation within the broader logic of global capitalist processes. Some imagine this role to be limited to supporting and maintaining the nation's competitiveness. For example, Robert Reich (1991) contends that

This content downloaded from 91.119.64.188 on Thu, 30 May 2013 08:22:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

S IG N S

Summer 2001

989

national governments can best contribute to the welfare of their peoples by pursuing a competitiveness-enhancing strategy such as educating the workforce in order to attract and keep high-paying jobs or underwriting research and development to promote innovation within national firms. The national-management approach, however, takes other forms as well. Calls for restrictions on the movement of capital across national borders and for opposition to WTO agreements in the name of protecting national firms and workers also refer to national collective interests and thus to national subjectivities. This approach often portrays states as not only major playersthemselves but also collectively through regional trading blocs such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Mercosur, and the European Union. Other writers emphasize the role that national governments can play in protecting subordinate groups from the worst aspects of globalization via regulations and safety nets. Still others insist that there is an important role for national policy in maintaining economic stability in an increasingly unstable globalized world economy (e.g., Taylor 1995). In recent years, even the World Bank has occasionally advocated an increased role for the state in managing the worst effects of globalization, on the condition that states practice the "good governance" guidelines set forth by the bank (World Bank 1996b; Wolfensohn 1997).4 These perspectives, unlike the global-imperative view outlined above, construct and deploy collective identities defined by national affiliationto make sense of the political economy of globalization. While the national-management and global-imperative approaches invoke different ideas about the power of global capital, economic subjectivity, and strategiesfor resistance,theorists do not maintain a distinct boundary regarding the use of one or another of these frameworks. The extent to which the role of the state has been reduced is still a question of debate, contributing to the ambiguity found in the political economy literatureon globalization in general as well as in specific texts. Paul Hirst and Grahame Thompson, for example, argue that a universal global capitalist economy has not yet emerged, but at the same time they are skeptical regarding the state's ability to regulate transnational capital. They suggest a hybrid approach, with "integratedpatterns of national and international public policy to cope with global market forces" (1996, 10). As Kayatekinand Ruccio (1998) argue, we need to recognize the simi4 In the wake of the Asian financialcrisis of the 1990s, the idea that national governments should play a larger role in stabilizing their economies has increased in popularity, especially at institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank, and the U.S. Treasury.Some have dubbed this shift of focus the "post-Washington consensus" to signal its difference from the earlier, free-market"Washingtonconsensus" policies of the 1980s and early 1990s. See, e.g., (atagay, Elson, and Grown 2000.

This content downloaded from 91.119.64.188 on Thu, 30 May 2013 08:22:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

990

Bergeron

larities as well as the differences between these two major discursive approaches within the political economy literature. While each leads to different conclusions regarding global economic and political integration and in regard to strategies for resistance, they also rely on the same general discourse of globalization, wherein subjectivities are inscribed within the inner logic of globalization. They see the total or partial globalization of the world as determining the global or national actors on the economic stage who, in turn, either match or resist these processes. These discursive practicescreate a limited space for imagining agency and practices of resistance within the context of global economic restructuring.Their emphasis on the power of institutions such as transnational capitalist firms, international financial institutions, and states causes us to fixate on these entities while relegating others to the margins. The extent to which these discourses are amenable to feminist projects, and whether feminist approaches to the political economy of globalization challenge these accounts and/or contribute to alternative conceptualizations, are the questions to which I now turn.

Feminist political economy and conventional discourses of globalization The abundance of feminist research into the relationship between gender relations and the globalization of capital has emphasized the conflictual interactions among multinational corporations, households, the nationstate, and women. In the early 1980s, much of the analysis of these processes focused on the expansion of transnationalcapital into the South and the emerging international division of labor. These companies preferred female workers, believing that they were more suited to this work ("nimble fingers") as well as being more docile and thus less likely to challenge management and organize unions (Safa 1981; Fernandez-Kelly1983). The resulting "feminization of employment" has resulted not only in an increase in the numbers of women in the paid labor force but in a change in the conditions of work, including temporary,part-time, and home-based work (Standing 1989). Feminist research has focused on both the negative and positive effects of these changes on women's lives (Elson and Pearson 1981) as well as on the contradictoryeffects of these changes on patriarchal systems and hence women's relative power (Fernandez-Kelly 1983; Afshar 1998). A growing awarenessof the importance of stabilization and adjustment policies in determining the pace of these transformations has shifted the focus of analysis somewhat. Structuraladjustment policies, which nation-

This content downloaded from 91.119.64.188 on Thu, 30 May 2013 08:22:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

S IG N S

Summer 2001

991

states have often (but not always) implemented as a result of IMF and World Bank conditionality agreements, have led to cuts in funding for social services and have realigned economies toward export production. The differentialeffects of these policies on women have by now been well documented (Cornia, Jolly, and Stewart 1987; Bakker 1994). Cutbacks affect women as the primary recipients of state services such as health care and child care. In addition, many women must increase their time in the paid labor force to make up for men's declining wages and the rising cost of food and other necessities (Vickers 1991). Similar outcomes for women have been documented with regardto both the demise of socialism in eastern Europe and the dismantling of the Keynesian welfare state in North America and Europe (Aslanbeigui, Pressman, and Summerfield 1994; Bakker 1996). In addition to documenting their effects, feminists have also exposed the androcentric assumptions that underlie structuraladjustment policies. For example, Diane Elson's incisive study of World Bank structural adjustment models has shown their biases, such as the assumption that the supply of women's nonmarket caring labor is virtually unlimited (1991). These feminist accounts have challenged the dominant scripts of globalization by elaborating the gendered assumptions and effects that are generally invisible in mainstream theories and by highlighting the sometimes contradictoryrelationships among transnationalcapital, state policy, reproductive labor, and gender relations. Feminist research that shows the importance of the private in the realm of reproduction in the household to the processes of globalization calls into question the privileging of the public sphere of governments, corporations, and international institutions in mainstream works on globalization. Nonetheless, many feminist accounts of globalization remain partly inscribed within mainstream discourses of economic and political space even as they are reconfiguring them. As Gillian Youngs explains, the understandings of economic and political space that underlie conventional accounts have gained a powerful commonsense status that is difficult to resist. In particular,the category of the state - including ideas about its role as a representativeof the nation's collective will, its internal power to direct processes, its external power as an actor in international relations, and the presumed interior order of the nation-state versus the disorder of the external world -continues to structure knowledge about the gendered processes of globalization even as they challenge such boundaries (Youngs 2000, 46-47). Within the context of feminist analyses of globalization, much contemporary work on structural adjustment appears analytically to retain this

This content downloaded from 91.119.64.188 on Thu, 30 May 2013 08:22:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

992

Bergeron

"commonsense" view of economic and political space and to view the state as the primarysite of women's resistanceto globalization. But this is problematic, as the state's role in protecting women from the negative effects of global capitalism has been increasingly called into question. Austerity measures such as currency devaluation and decreased spending on social services are inevitably introduced by national governments. In the name of national economic growth and stability,states have frequently collaborated with transnational capital's efforts to exploit women (Szockyj and Fox 1996; Chang and Ling 2000). And government policy makers often accompany these efforts with claims that their hands are "tied"because globalization has decreased their ability to provide social services and protect workers from the negative effects of transnationalcapital. International institutions such as the United Nations and World Bank have tended to echo these formulations. For example, a 1999 UN report notes that "international trends have transformed the policy environment at the national level so as to diminish the capacity of the state to address social ills, including gender equity" (quoted in (agatay, Elson, and Grown 2000, 1147). While recognizing the changing role of the state in the context of globalization, the tendency among feminist political economists writing on structuraladjustment, particularlythose who are engaged in debates within the discipline of economics, is to continue to theorize the nation-state as women's primary source of resistance to the negative aspects of globalization. For example, the 1995 WorldDevelopment special issue on "Gender, Adjustment and Macroeconomics" attempts to reclaim the state as the protector of women and other vulnerable citizens, emphasizing the role that national policy can play by instituting national restrictionson international capital, social safety nets, fair-pay laws, and health and safety regulations (see Cagatay, Elson, and Grown 1995). It should be noted work in this areadoes not see the state as being able to do anything it wants in this context - for example, such work often cautions against pursuing policies that are "overdesigned," as these may scare international capital away (Tzannatos 1995; Walters 1995). Nonetheless, the underlying assumption here is that national economic policy is the most effective and the best hope for women's resistance against the negative aspects of globalization (see also Commonwealth Secretariat1989; Collier 1994). Such conceptualizations are not limited to the academic writings of feminist economists but have also made their way into other arenas. For example, the Beijing Platform for Action's overarching emphasis on the role that nation-states must play to protect women from the negative consequences of globalization contains them. These writings reflect many of the features of the national-management

This content downloaded from 91.119.64.188 on Thu, 30 May 2013 08:22:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

S I G NS

Summer 2001

993

approach to globalization. The goal is to reassertwhatever control is possible over national economic space, through the use of expert knowledges of economic modeling and policy making at the national level, and to make feminist concerns a central part of that process. These writings conceive of subjects as having national interests associated with the relative success of national economic goals and policies. For example, the agency of collective national subjectivity would be the force that could impose regulations on foreign capital, in an attempt to protect "its"female workers from the international division of labor. Of course, given the gender biases inherent in current economic policy institutions and processes, the deployment of this agency into the policy realm, feminists rightly insist, is incumbent on making policy more gender aware (Elson 1991; Budlender 2000). Still, the nearly exclusive emphasis on the nation-state as the primary site of women's resistance to global economic forces has limited the range of potential options that can be meaningfully discussed in the feminist economics literature. This strict adherence to the national-management framework has recently been tempered by a perspective that notes some of the limits of the state in an era of globalization but that views the state as retaining some partial sovereignty and control. As Nilifer Catagay, Diane Elson, and Caren Grown write, "some dimensions of gender inequality can be addressed at the national level, for example, closing gaps in education and health. Other national policies that enhance growth and gender equality include strengthening women's ownership and control over assets . . . and improving their access to credit, marketing structures, transport and technology. With increased globalization, however, other dimensions of inequality, such as gender gaps in wages, may be more difficult to tackle at the national level. More concerted efforts must be made at the international level to develop a harmonized frameworkfor labor market equality" (2000, 1153). In this formulation, the nation-state can still play a (reduced) role in regulating and socializing those markets that have not been completely transnationalized.However, in terms of markets and processes that transcend the national, the only source of resistance is itself transnational. So, in this case, because labor markets are beyond the control of the national community and thus women's interests at this level, it is the global community that must come to a collective decision about regulating labor markets through global governance. Both the national-management approach and this more hybrid approach frame the task of managing global capital in order to mitigate its negative effects on women within a discourse that views global capitalism as an independent force that is out of our control - as Anne Sisson Runyan

This content downloaded from 91.119.64.188 on Thu, 30 May 2013 08:22:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

994

Bergeron

puts it, a "faitaccompli" (1999, 218). Conceived within such a capitalocentric discourse, calls for state intervention to manage the national economy and provide particular kinds of support constrain our ability to imagine many alternatives outside the form of globalization preferred by transnational capital. They are also in part conceived within a "statecentric"discourse, one based on a dichotomous state-marketframework that implicitly assumes that the nation-state remains the primary site of women's political identity and agency in terms of resistance to global capitalism. However, the construction of collective subjectivitiesvis-a-vis economic globalization and sources of resistancemight not necessarilycoincide with national boundaries. National contexts have never functioned as "sealed rooms" (Narayan 1997) inhabited by "insiders"who share an account and interest in national institutions, values, and practices. States that have implemented gender-aware policies have typically been responding to the needs and desires of elite women, which calls into question the idea that state policy articulates some common national women's interest (Afshar 1998; Schild 1998). Further, the state, which these national-management scenarios position as the agent, is often in an ambiguous role vis-a-vis global capital, on the one hand representing itself as a defender of national interests but on the other itself being complicit with the forces of economic globalization (Schild 1998; Rai 1999). Women's interventions regarding structuraladjustment often include a renegotiation of boundaries, such as those dividing the global-local and public-private.Forms of resistancespan and cross multiple social levels, from community organizing, demonstrations, social movements, cross-border organizing, and survival strategies to movements at the national level, such as demonstrations to protest budget cuts, pressures on political parties, and feminist movement and nongovernmental organization (NGO) demands on the state (Marchand and Runyan 2000, 157). The privileging of national identities presents a problem for feminist politics because it either renders these other concerns, political collectivities, and forms of resistanceinvisible or pushes them to the margins of thought. Appeals to the nation-state presuppose a universal political and economic referent, but they are in reality based on exclusionary gendered, classed, and racializedmeanings and practices.While feminists should celebrate the progress they have made in challenging the gender biases of government policies, they also need to analyze the kinds of subjectivities feminist appeals to the state for protection from global capitalism invoke. Marianne Marchand and Runyan's analysis of an advertisement by the American Federation of Labor-Congressof Industrial Organizations aimed at affecting U.S. trade policy shows some of the messages that these global-

This content downloaded from 91.119.64.188 on Thu, 30 May 2013 08:22:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

S IG N S

Summer 2001

995

national narrativescontain. The ad, which is a picture of a young, white woman, carries the heading "In a fast track world, she gets left behind." The script of the ad suggests that women are working for America and for their families. However, it also suggests that women have little agency in choosing their future. Instead, they are portrayed as victims of globalization who need protection from the state, which is encouraged to take on the traditional masculine role of protecting women and families. The choice of a white woman to represent U.S. workers renders invisible the diversity of groups that make up the U.S. working cass (Marchand and Runyan 2000, 9-11). These images and their effects tend to be insufficiently theorized within national-management discourses of globalization. As globalization has changed the ways that people conceive of political and economic space, a feminist discourse of globalization has emerged, contending that nation-states and thus national subjectivities are no longer meaningful. Instead, the best resistancestrategies for women are based on the new "realities"of global identity. For instance, Gita Sen writes, "Capital flight is the sword of Damocles that hangs over the heads not only of those who organize workers, the marginalized poor and women, or dare to protest against environmental decay and plunder, but over governments who attempt to regulate the conditions under which capital can operate with a national economy. Clearly ... delinking from the global economy is not a real choice: few economies are large or self-sustaining enough to attempt this without enormous suffering." She goes on to argue, "it is difficult if not impossible to challenge global actors if women are unwilling to act globally" (1997, 23). The only effective form of resistanceto global capitalis global sisterhood, which means shedding our no longer meaningful national and local identities in favor of global ones. Similarly,Valentine Moghadam (1998) writes that the massive entry of women into the global economy blurs many of the lines that had separatedwomen by class, race, nationality, and so on in the past, thus laying the groundwork for a global women's movement. The role of capital as the defining factor here is evident, especially in her clever echoing and repositioning of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel's famous pronouncement, in which this global women's movement constitutes a "specterhaunting the global economy" (Moghadam 1998, 153). A great deal of the feminist literatureon economic globalization contains this heralding of international solidarity.Calls for a globalized women's movement (or coalition of movements) to rise up against global capitalism represents one form of this sort of global politics found in the literature; another form emphasizes the emergence and transformation of institutional structures such as the UN, the World Bank, and the International Labour Organization, which can engage in gender-aware

This content downloaded from 91.119.64.188 on Thu, 30 May 2013 08:22:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

996

Bergeron

global regulation and governance (Cohen 1996; Meyer and Priigl 1999). This global-imperative perspective gives a great deal of power to capital as a determining force. The interests and consciousness of actors are by and large read off of economic relations, which are in turn conceived to be determined by globalized capitalism. Economic globalization calls forth its other, the global women's movement, which is the only possible source of effective resistance. Like the national-management approach, this frames resistance in ways that leave out other potential collectivities and forms of organizing. There are, however, alternative ways of imagining capital and resistancecoming out of feminist analysis that might create more space for recognizing these other forms of collective subjectivity,and it is to these I now turn.

Alternative notions of feminist subjectivity: Deconstructing global capital and imagined global and national communities extendfarbeyondthe economic. of restructuring The gendereddimensions entailsa fundamental roundof restructuring Instead,the current redrawing andnational,the stateand betweeninternational boundaries of the familiar in This realignment, and"private." "public" economy,andthe so-called feminist andsitesof contemporary both the assumptions turn,undermines of the thinkingaboutthe boundaries politicsandinvitesnew strategic political. -Brodie 1994, 46 While feminist analyses have remained partly framed within conventional political economy discourses of globalization, they are also participating in the formation of alternative conceptualizations, which in turn lead to alternative subjectivities and political strategies. Given the capitalocentric nature of conventional approaches, which can (often unwittingly) provide "an alibi for exploitation" (Spivak 1996, 4), a challenge to the relative hegemony of national-management and global-imperative discourses within feminist political economy begins by rethinking the nature of globalizing capital itself, by challenging the presentation of economic mechanisms of globalization as governed by a unified, intentional, and noncontradictory economic logic, as the more or less inevitable outcome of a drive to accumulate on a worldwide basis, or even as an outcome determined solely by powerful international institutions. This project begins by denaturalizing globalizing capitalism and seeing it as a socially constructed process. By moving away from hegemonic thinking about the market as a naturaland unstoppable force, we can begin

This content downloaded from 91.119.64.188 on Thu, 30 May 2013 08:22:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

S IG N S

Summer 2001

997

to imagine more broadly the ways that women can play a role in shaping markets and economies, a role beyond simply managing their already determined outcomes (Beneria 1999). An emerging strand of feminist political economy recognizes that conventional discourses of globalization derive rhetorical staying power from their reliance on conventional patriarchal gendered meanings. For example, J. K. Gibson-Graham have argued that the symbolic representation of economic globalization as a powerful, dominant force rests on gendered binary hierarchies,creating a totalizing tale that reads like a "rapescript."5 Economic globalization is envisioned as dominant, unified, intentional, counterpoised to the subordinate and/or disunified nation-states, communities, and social movements that attempt to resist its power. GibsonGraham draw an analogy between this representation of globalization and the "rapescript,"which takes men's desire and ability to rape, and women's victimization, as given. "Capitalistpenetration" evokes an image of a rape that cannot be avoided or contested. This vision prevents us from seeing that global capital is more vulnerable and contestable than it appears (Gibson-Graham 1996). Charlotte Hooper (2000) has also noted the role of gendered binaries at work in the construction of knowledges about globalization; her analysis of globalization tales in the Economist,for example, discovered the use of the word rape to describe the movement of international capital to developed economies. The power of this rhetorical frameis in evidence when feminists imagine strategiesof opposition against this dominant force, and these strategies become inscribed with the dominant discourses of globalization: resisting globalization through a coalition of the fragmented and various sites of resistance replicates the gendered dichotomies of the rape script. As Gibson-Graham (1996) have suggested, the theoretical move of adopting this rhetoric resonates at least in part with a feminist politics of revaluing the "feminine" to overturn patriarchy-replacing the rational, abstract, and dominating masculine order with the emotional, connected, peace-loving, and egalitarianone. The problem with this kind of feminist politics is that it posits an essential feminine way of being, a universalizing theoretical move that has come under heavy fire from women of color, lesbians, and working-class women, among others. It also maintains the natural dominance and rationality of men and the passivity and nonrational nature of women (Weedon 1999). Similarly,the problem with a feminist
5 J. K. Gibson-Graham is a pseudonym for two people. For a related feminist analysis of the gendered languages and practices of development theory, see Scott 1995. For a feminist account of the gendered binariesthat inform internationalrelations theory, see Peterson 1992.

This content downloaded from 91.119.64.188 on Thu, 30 May 2013 08:22:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

998

Bergeron

politics of globalization based on a gendered hierarchyof meaning is not only that it fails to capture all the different subjectivities created by and beside globalization but that it continues to represent globalization as a dominant and unified force, thus making resistance seem utopian and/or destined for defeat. An alternativeapproach, following Gibson-Graham, might deconstruct the concept of the "global economy" and talk about the complexity of its identity. One could show, for example, the ways that multinational corporations are contradictory and decentered organizations that may fail to achieve their goals or lose out to feminist initiatives. Instead of accepting the script of multinational firms as inherently powerful, we could begin to see them as limited and potentially vulnerable. Images of an all-pervasive global reach could be countered with, for example, evidence that three of the four primary source nations of multinational investment (the United States, the United Kingdom, and West Germany, but not Japan) are also the major hosts of this type of investment (Gibson-Graham 1996, 127). Recognizing that the power of multinationals is often open to contestation, constrained by language, culture, and law to locate in certain places but not in others, challenges the dominant script of globalization by diminishing the power of the perpetratorand provides a theoretical ground for engaging feminist interests with the contradictory potentials that these multinational organizations possess. An emerging literatureon women's economic organizing in the context of global restructuringprovides some examples of these contestations and alternativeconceptualizations of transnational capital and its "others" (see esp. Rowbotham and Mitter 1994; Basu 1995; Afshar and Barrientos 1999). Aili Marie Tripp'sresearch,for example, shows how women's social networks emerging in the wake of Tanzania'sdeindustrialization and austerity measures gave rise to formal and informal collective economic strategies that challenged and/or created alternativesto multinational capital. To supplement falling realhousehold incomes, many women have been drawn into the so-called informal sector of the economy, where they became involved in projects such as selling pastriesand craftsand urban farming. The rich history of women's associations in Tanzaniacreated the backdrop for women to begin cooperating in some of these projects, and the diversity of practices that brought these women together included religious, social, tribal, personal, economic, and political affiliations. The range of projects is large. Poor urban women who were involved together in a sewing project, for example, used that money to start a cooperative flour mill, and others opened cooperative stores and manufacturing firms. Among other things, Tripp'schronicle of the emergence of these women's networks and

This content downloaded from 91.119.64.188 on Thu, 30 May 2013 08:22:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

S IG N S

Summer 2001

999

their contributions to women's survival strategies problematizes the idea that third-world women will inevitably be drawn into sweatshop conditions and dependent on transnationalcapital for work (1994). Kumudhini Rosa's study of women working in the Sri Lankan, Malaysian, and Philippine free-trade zones also demonstrates how social networks contribute to women's resistancestrategies. In a case from Sri Lanka, women workers use wages from their jobs at multinational firms to establish women's centers that provide legal and medical assistance, library services, training, cooperative housing facilities, and food cooperatives aimed at decreasing the cost of food for women workers as well as other members of the community. In this context, these women use multinational capital to foster the development of alternatives, including cooperative alternatives, to capitalism (Rosa 1994). Similarly,a group of women workers in the maquiladora region of Mexico have used their factory wages to start a women's center that provides legal assistance, a daycare center that provides training so that women can move out of factory work, and a waste management cooperative that holds a contract with the city (Peina1996). While these forms of resistanceare aimed at altering and/or taking control of economic conditions, they have transformedwomen's sense of individual and collective identity as well, as they renegotiate their places in the household, workplace, and community. These experiences and efforts serve to challenge the public-private boundariesof these women's lives, including the boundary between productive and reproductive activities that is frequently presumed in discussions of powerful global capital "economic" processes and their fragmented, marginal, and inconsequential "noneconomic" others (Gibson-Graham 1996). They also challenge the boundary that is often drawn between the global and the local. These cases demonstrate that such boundaries are indistinct as the local penetrates the global and vice versa. In doing so, these narrativesof women's economic organizing question the very idea that the global economy conforms to a single logic by demonstrating a proliferation of different economic forms. I do not mean to suggest that all of these alternativeforms will necessarilybe subversive to the goals of transnational capital.But, as the participantsin the "Women Reclaim the Market"roundtable at the 1995 World Summit for Social Development have suggested, acknowledging that there is not "one market" but many markets, including some in which women are the major actors and beneficiariesand some that are distinctly noncapitalist, opens up spaces for resistance by challenging the disempowering framework of globalocentric discourse (Runyan 1999). One danger is that these contextual and particularmovements will get

This content downloaded from 91.119.64.188 on Thu, 30 May 2013 08:22:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1000

Bergeron

reinscribedinto the discourse of "global feminism"- for instance, via representations of the NGO forum at Beijing- that lump them into one unified voice against a supposedly unified capitalistworld market. As Inderpal Grewal and Caren Kaplan (1994) have argued, we need to be wary of such images of transnational feminism within which varying local interpretations are collapsed into a homogenous identity of "women's interests" against global capitalism. These interests are often dictated by Western feminist concerns, which celebrate individuality and modernity and fail to recognize the diversity of women's experiences, including women's experiences with economic globalization. Certain essentialist notions of a global feminist community could distractfeminists from recognizing the continuing inequalities of power within that community, for instance between Western and non-Western feminisms.6 For example, Gayatri Spivak has criticized the UN-sponsored World Conference on Women held in Beijing in 1995 as representing a kind of "global theater" that puts on a show of global unity while in fact engaging in colonialist strategies and power relations. According to Spivak, the conference represented the (fictive) unity of North and South but left out the poorest women from the South, and the very premise of the conference was based on northern discursive mechanisms, including the unspoken assumption of the UN that the South is not capable of governing itself (Spivak 1996). However, making clear the multiple and contested nature of capitalism can help move feminist analysts away from this problematic and universalizing frame to establish opportunities for "strategic sisterhood" (Agarwal 1996) that recognize the different articulationsof economic processes and areasof common concern and intervention in the transnationalarena. This notion of strategic sisterhood recognizes a whole range of different possible feminist identities, alliances, and forms of resistanceto globalization.7 Women engaged in community organizing against the construction of a World Bank-funded nuclear power plant in the Philippines might join with other women's groups in an internationalmarch of protest against the bank (Araullo 2000). As Stephanie Barrientos and Diane Perrons (1999) besuggest, changing patterns of production and consumption of produce on effects and their attendant international of increased cause integration local in have resulted women both Chilean and British working-class struggles. But these changes have also drawn attention to the commonality
These issues have been particularlytroubling to feminist human rights arguments. For a summary of positions and debates in the literatureon global women's rights from a philosophy perspective, see Jaggar 1998. 7 For a philosophical discussion of a "global feminist imagined community" that could be based in part on such strategic engagements, see Ferguson 1995.
6

This content downloaded from 91.119.64.188 on Thu, 30 May 2013 08:22:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

S IG N S

Summer 2001

1001

of experience for women in both countries, thus contributing to transnational organizing strategies. The formation of a coalition of Canadian and Mexican feminist groups to oppose NAFTA provides another example of "feminist internationality"that is based on partial and multiple identities (Gabriel and MacDonald 1994). These and countless other examples of women's transnationalresistanceto different forms of multinational capital represent a process of reinventing and reimagining overlapping feminist communities at the local, global, and national levels. Amy Lind's studies of women's organizations in Ecuador demonstrate quite clearlythe construction and deployment of multiple identities (against multiple contested sites) in women's response to economic globalization (1997, 2000). As political leaders, these women challenge traditional gender relations in Ecuador. But, in their critique of the state, they position themselves as clients of the state as paternal provider, invoking traditional gender roles. The state targets them to provide service to their communities in the face of budget cuts, which gives them power, but at the same time they are expected to do this on a largely volunteer basis, adding a third shift to their daily responsibilities. They locate their struggle on nationalist terrain, but by recognizing the state's complicity with the forces of globalizing capital as well as its "victim" status in the neocolonial order they challenge both national and international interests. Their relationship to the state is not based on a universal notion of economic and political citizenship but on a particular context of histories and meanings through which they have come to identify themselves with the Ecuadorian nationstate. While the nation is the symbolic terrain on which they map their strategies, they are also remaking the nation by opposition to exclusionary state policies. Through these contradictory and overlapping sites and practices, Ecuadorian women's organizations are rearticulating the economic and political effects of restructuringinto their lives and are inventing new identities. At the same time, their political strategies are limited by the ways they imagine their relationships to capital, the nation-state, the IMF, and NGOs (Lind 2000). In this sense, women's resistance strategies to economic globalization are not well conceptualized in the debate of nation-state versus global capitalism that characterizesconventional political economy discourses. The question is to imagine how women's struggles can confront the connected yet "scatteredhegemonies" (Grewal and Kaplan 1994, 17) of global economic institutions, nation-states, patriarchalhouseholds, and other structures that support exploitation, in ways that challenge all of these sites and the connections among them. This is not to say that global and national subjectivities invoked in dominant political economy accounts have not

This content downloaded from 91.119.64.188 on Thu, 30 May 2013 08:22:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1002

Bergeron

served as the basis for particularand sometimes valuable kinds of activism. Rather, an alternative feminist discourse of global capitalism, through which contradictory and heterogeneous subjectivities are recognized and produced not only in the processes of global capitalism but also in the gaps and margins of these processes, offers a more transformative feminist vision that expands possible forms of intervention and resistance beyond those offered in conventional political economy discourses. StudiesProgram Women's Departmentof SocialSciences University ofMichigan, Dearborn

References

Illustrations from the Third World. Afshar, Haleh. 1998. Womenand Empowerment:

Macmillan. Basingstoke: and Globalization eds. 1999. Women, Afshar,Haleh, and StephanieBarrientos,
Fragmentationin theDevelopingWorld.New York: St. Martin's. Mexico1975 to Beijing1995." IndianJournal ofGenBina.1996. "From Agarwal, der Studies3(1):21-35. Agnew, John, and Stuart Corbridge. 1995. Mastering Space:Hegemony,Territory London: Routledge. and InternationalPoliticalEconomy.

Econin the GlobalCultural andDifference Arjun.1990. "Disjunction Appadurai,

omy." In Global Culture: Nationalism, Globalization,and Modernity, ed. Mike

295-310. London:Sage. Featherstone, in the Philippines." andGlobalization 2000. "Gender Caroline. prePaper Araullo, Dearborn. of Michigan, StudiesSpeaker sentedattheWomen's Series, University eds. 1994. Women and Gale Summerfield, Nahid, StevenPressman, Aslanbeigui,
and in Post-socialist GenderImpactofReforms in theAge ofEconomic Transformation: London: Countries. Routledge. Developing Policy.LonBakker, Isabella, ed. 1994. The StrategicSilence:Genderand Economic

don: Zed.
. 1996. RethinkingRestructuring:Genderand Change in Canada. Toronto:

of TorontoPress. University
and National Autonomy: Banuri, Tariq, and Julie Schor. 1992. Financial Openness and Constraints.Oxford: Oxford University Press. Opportunities

Barrientos, Stephanie,and Diane Perrons.1999. "Genderand the GlobalFood Chain:A Comparative Studyof Chile and the UK."In Afsharand Barrientos 1999, 150-73.
Movementsin Basu, Amrita, ed. 1995. The Challengeof LocalFeminisms:Women's Westview. GlobalPerspective. Boulder, Colo.: Economics 5(3):61-83.

Genderand the Davos Man."Feminist Beneria,Lourdes.1999. "Globalization,

This content downloaded from 91.119.64.188 on Thu, 30 May 2013 08:22:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

S IG N S

Summer 2001

1003

Brecher,Jeremy, and Tim Costello. 1994. GlobalVillageor GlobalPillage: Economic Reconstruction from theBottomUp. Boston: South End. 1994. Brodie, Janine. "Shifting the Boundaries: Gender and the Politics of RestrucIn Bakker 1994, 46-60. turing." Deborah. 2000. "The Political Economy of Women's Budgets in the Budlender, South." WorldDevelopment 28(7):1365-78. Castells, Manuel. 1998. End ofMillennium. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. (atagay, Nilifer, Diane Elson, and Caren Grown. 1995. "Introduction."In "Gender, Adjustment and Macroeconomics, ed. Nilifer (atagay, Diane Elson, and Caren Grown, special issue of WorldDevelopment 23(11):1827-36. 2000. "Introduction."In "Growth, Trade, Finance, and Gender Inequality,"ed. Nilifer (atagay, Diane Elson, and Caren Grown, special issue of World 28(7):1145-56. Development Chang, Kimberly,and L. H. M. Ling. 2000. "Globalizationand Its Intimate Other: Filipina Domestic Workers in Hong Kong." In Marchand and Runyan 2000, 27-43. Cohen, Marjorie G. 1996. "Democracy and the Future of Nations: Challenges for Disadvantaged Women, Minorities and States."In Statesagainst Markets: The Limits of Globalization,ed. Robert Boyer and Daniel Drache, 399-414. London: Routledge. Collier, Paul. 1994. "GenderAspects of Labor Allocation during StructuralAdjustment?' InLaborMarkets in an Era ofAdjustment, ed. Susan Horton, Ravi Kanbur, and Dipak Mazumdar, 277-346. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Commonwealth Secretariat. 1989. EngenderingAdjustmentfor the 1990s: Reportof a Commonwealth Expert Groupon Womenand StructuralAdjustment. London: Commonwealth Secretariat. Cornia, Giovanni Andrea, Richard Jolly, and Frances Stewart, eds. 1987. Adjustmentwith a Human Face. New York: Oxford University Press. Dicken, Peter. 1992. GlobalShift. New York: Guilford. Dirlik, Arif. 1994. AftertheRevolution: Wakingto GlobalCapitalism.Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England. Manchester: ManchesElson, Diane, ed. 1991. MaleBias in theDevelopmentProcess. ter University Press. Elson, Diane, and Ruth Pearson. 1981. "Nimble Fingers Make Cheap Workers: An Analysis of Women's Employment in Third World Export Manufacturing.? FeministReview8 (Spring): 87-107. Ferguson, Ann. 1995. "Feminist Communities and Moral Revolution." In Feminismand Communit, ed. Penny Weiss and Marilyn Friedman, 367-97. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Fernandez-Kelly,Maria Patricia. 1983. For WeAre Sold,I and My People:Womenin IndustryinMexico'sFrontier.Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press. Gabriel, Christina, and LauraMacDonald. 1994. "NAFTA, Women and OrganizMillenium ing in Canada and Mexico: Forging a Feminist Internationality." 23(3):535-62.

This content downloaded from 91.119.64.188 on Thu, 30 May 2013 08:22:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1004

Bergeron

Gibson-Graham, J. K. 1996. TheEnd of Capitalism(as WeKnewIt): A FeministCriOxford: Blackwell. tiqueofPoliticalEconomy. Giddens, Anthony. 1991. Modernityand Self-Identity:Self and Societyin the Late ModernAge. Cambridge: Polity. Gill, Stephen. 1995. "Globalization, Market Civilization, and Disciplinary Neoliberalism." Millenium 24(3): 1613-26. PostmodernGrewal, Inderpal, and Caren Kaplan, eds. 1994. Scattered Hegemonies: Transnational Feminist Practices. of Minnesota and ity Minneapolis: University Press. in Question:TheInternaHirst, Paul, and GrahameThompson. 1996. Globalization and Possibilities tionalEconomy Governance. of Cambridge: Polity. Hooper, Charlotte. 2000. "Masculinitiesin Transition:The Case of Globalization." In Marchand and Runyan 2000, 59-73. Jaggar,Alison. 1998. "Globalizing Feminist Ethics."Hypatia 13(2):7-23. or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Jameson, Frederic. 1991. Postmodernism, Press. N.C.: Duke Durham, University Jessop, Bob. 1995. "Towardsa Shumpeterian WorkfareRegime in Britain?Reflecand Plantions on Regulation, Governance and the WelfareState."Environment 1613-26. ning 27 (October): Kayatekin, Serap, and David Ruccio. 1998. "Global Fragments: Subjectivity and and Society Class Politics in Discourses of Globalization."Economy 27(1):74-96. Social Lind, Amy. 1997. "Gender, Development and Urban Change: Women's 26(8):1205-23. Community Action in Global Cities." WorldDevelopment . 2000. "Negotiating Boundaries: Women's Organizations and the Politics of Restructuring in Ecuador."In Marchand and Runyan 2000, 161-75. Ling, L. H. M. 1996. "Hegemony and the Internationalizing State: A Postcolonial Analysis of China's Integration into Asian Corporatism."Reviewof nternational PoliticalEconomy3(1):1-26. MacEwan, Arthur, and William K. Tabb. 1989. Instabilityand Changein the World New York: Monthly Review. Economy. Marchand, Marianne, and Anne Sisson Runyan, eds. 2000. Genderand GlobalReNew York: Routledge. structuring:Sightings,Sites,and Resistances. 1999. GenderPoliticsin GlobalGovereds. Elizabeth and Mary K., Priigl, Meyer, nance. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield. Moghadam, Valentine. 1998. "Gender and the Global Economy." In Revisioning Gender,ed. Myra Feree, Judith Lorber, and Beth Hess, 128-60. London: Sage. Narayan, Uma. 1997. Dislocating Cultures:Identities, Traditions,and Third World Feminism.New York: Routledge. on the US.oftheMachine: Work,Genderand Ecology Pefia, Devon. 1996. The Terror Press. Texas MexicoBorderAustin: University of Peterson, V. Spike. 1992. GenderedStates:FeministRevisionsof InternationalRelationsTheory. Boulder, Colo.: Rienner. Rai, Shirin. 1999. "FractionedStates and Negotiated Boundaries: Gender and Law in India."In Afshar and Barrientos 1999, 18-37.

This content downloaded from 91.119.64.188 on Thu, 30 May 2013 08:22:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

S IG N S

Summer 2001

1005

Reich, Robert. 1991. The WorkofNations:PreparingOurselvesfor21st CenturyCapitalism. New York: Knopf. Robertson, Roland. 1992. Globalization:Social Theoryand Global Culture. London: Sage. Rosa, Kumudhini. 1994. "The Conditions and OrganizationalActivities of Women in Free Trade Zones: Malaysia, Philippines and Sri Lanka, 1970-1990." In Rowbotham and Mitter 1994, 73-99. Rowbotham, Sheila, and Swasti Mitter, eds. 1994. Dignity and Daily Bread:New FormsofEconomic OrganizingamongPoorWomenin the ThirdWorldand theFirst. New York: Routledge. Runyan, Anne Sisson. 1999. "Women in the Neoliberal Frame."In Meyer and Priigl 1999, 210-20. Safa, Helen. 1981. "Runaway Shops and Female Employment: The Search for Cheap Labor."Signs:Journalof Womenin Cultureand Society7(2):418-33. and Its Discontents. New York:New Press. Sassen, Saskia. 1998. Globalization Veronica. 1998. "New Schild, Subjects of Rights? Women's Movements and the Construction of Citizenship in the 'New Democracies."' In Culturesof Politics, Politicsof Cultures:RevisioningLatinAmerican SocialMovements,ed. Sonia Alvarez, Evelina Dagnino, and Arturo Escobar, 93-117. Boulder, Colo.: Westview. Scholte, Jan Aart. 1996. "The Geography of Collective Identities in a Globalizing World" Reviewof nternationalPoliticalEconomy3-4 (Winter): 565-607. Modernizationand DeScott, Catherine. 1995. Genderand Development: Rethinking Boulder, Colo.: Rienner. pendency Theory. Sen, Gita. 1997. "Globalization, Justice, and Equity: A Gender Perspective." Development40(2):21-26. Spivak, GayatriChakravorty.1996. "'Woman'as Theatre: United Nation's Conference on Women, Beijing 1995." RadicalPhilosophy 75 (January-February): 2-4. Standing, Guy. 1989. "Global Feminization through Flexible Labor."WorldDevelopment17(7):1077-95. Victimizationof Women. Szockyj, Elizabeth, and James Fox, eds. 1996. Corporate Boston: Northeastern University Press. Taylor,Lance. 1995. "Environmentaland Gender Feedbacks in Macroeconomics." WorldDevelopment 23(11):1953-62. Tripp, Aili Marie. 1994. "Deindustrialization and the Growth of Women's Economic Associations and Networks in Urban Tanzania." In Rowbotham and Mitter 1994, 139-57. Tzannatos, Zafiris. 1995. "Women and Labor Market Changes in the Global Economy: Growth Helps, Inequalities Hurt and Public Policy Matters."WorldDevelopment27(3):551-69. Vickers, Jeanne. 1991. Womenand the WorldEconomic Crisis.London: Zed. Walters, Bernard. 1995. "Engendering Macroeconomics: A Reconsideration of Growth Theory."WorldDevelopment 23(11):1861-82. and the Politicsof Diference. Oxford: BlackWeedon, Chris. 1999. Feminism,Theory well.

This content downloaded from 91.119.64.188 on Thu, 30 May 2013 08:22:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1006

Bergeron

Available on-line at Wolfensohn, James. 1997. "The Challenge of Inclusion"?' <http ://www.worldbank.org/html/extrdr/am97/jdw_sp/jwsp97e.htm>. Wood, Cynthia. 1999. "Adjustmentwith a Woman's Face: The Marginalization of Gender in the World Bank'sAnalysis of Policies for Economic Restructuring." Unpublished manuscript, Appalachian State University. A World Bank. 1994. Enhancing Women's Participationin EconomicDevelopment: WorldBank PolicyPaper Washington, D.C.: World Bank. and theDevelopingCountries.Washington, . 1996a. GlobalEconomic Prospects D.C.: World Bank. . 1996b. WorldDevelopment Report.Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Bonds: Demythologizing the Public/ 2000. Patriarchal "Breaking Youngs, Gillian. and In Private." Marchand Runyan 2000, 44-58.

This content downloaded from 91.119.64.188 on Thu, 30 May 2013 08:22:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions